Chuck it is a three millimeter difference. I had the opportunity to
check the optometrist measurements against my own which boosted my
confidence in measuring. I measured my eldest daughter's distances
too and she was 4mm out of summitry. Eccentric folks... :*) All
Scottish decent on both sides. Must be the cold damp conditions.
My figures were formatted oddly, but that's not how I presented them
to Zenni.
They came to me formatted as 35/64 32/67
I presented them as:
OD - 35
OS - 32
Distance - 67
Near - 64
Zenni did not appear to be confused about the formatting and
reiterated the information just as I presented it.
Coastal Contacts had no such trouble, but mentioned that they had a
formula for calculating near focus instead of taking my number. I was
curious about that, but I would think that accommodating a 3mm
difference from centre would be far more important than any
differences between their formula and my reality.
Ian
On Nov 5, 12:37 pm, Chuck Knight <
chuckkni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Please post your PD numbers, again. As I remember, when you typed
> them in, they were formatted differently than standard.
>
> 3mm difference between the two eyes seems somehow wrong, unless you
> are descended from Picasso. My eyes are not positioned symmetrically,
> but they only vary by 1/2mm.
>
> And, to answer your question, many places don't even bother with
> monocular PD measurements. It's *ideal,* but it's more trouble.
>
> -- Chuck Knight
>